Look through your notes from the recent round of Oral Papers.
Engage with ONE of the oral papers in one of the following ways:
1. Present a disagreeing rebuttal to the thesis, providing at least TWO items of textual evidence that support your rebuttal.
2. Present a supportive response to the these, providing at least TWO additional items of textual evidence that bolster your support.
As part of your response, you may draw parallels between two of the oral papers in substantive and interesting ways.
Please note: disagreeing with someone's thesis does not mean you thought their oral paper was weak or insufficient. It simply means you see things another way. So don't be afraid or worried about presenting an opposing view. In truth, a good thesis is one that a rational person can reasonably disagree with. So you needn't fret about hurting anyone's feelings.
If you take an opposing view, do it with respect and clarity.
If you take a bolstering view, do it without being overly "bravo awesome."
Simply state your case - whether you disagree or agree and why (based on strong textual evidence).
Ready: go. DUE by 11:59 p.m. on Monday, November 19th.
The presentation on names in 2 Samuel was very interesting, as it presented the idea that the names of Bathsheba and Tamar were used but later omitted once they are objectified by men. This symbolized how women were viewed and treated during this time. There is a return to the use of names once she is seen as more than an object. I thought the argument Paige presented was spot on and could be expanded and applied to Genesis. In Genesis 16, Sarai gives Hagar to her husband Abram because she cannot have children herself. In this act of giving her servant to her husband, she views Hagar as an object and this is evident when she says in Genesis 16:2 “Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. God in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her”. This passage serves to highlight the lack of humanity in Hagar in the eyes of Sarai and shows her as a means to have children. Her name is returned later in verse 8 when an angel of the Lord confronts her as she runs away. This scene of fear shows that she is not simply an object which is what Paige was getting at in her presentation. This action is later repeated in the story of Jacob and Rachel in Genesis 30. Rachel is unable to conceive so she gives her servant Bilhah to him. In verse 3 it says, “Her is my servant Bilhah; go into her, so that she may give birth on my behalf, that even I may have children through her”. The use of the semicolon is to separate thoughts, which would indicate the use of Bilhah’s name is separate from the instruction to sleep with her to have a child. This then would support the argument of women being used as objects. Her name is restored when she goes through the human process of child birth seen in verse 5. These passages, in addition to the examples given in Paige’s presentation would indicate that rather than the objectification coming only from men, but that it occurred from those who saw themselves as superior on those who were viewed as inferior.
ReplyDeleteMine Nacke had both a good thesis and plenty of supporting evidence as to what the nature of the friendship between David and Jonathan was, however I feel as though she could have gone further with the terminology she used to describe the relationship. Although the word she used to summarize it, bromance, is rather fitting, it is also very informal and lax as it is slang. Perhaps the term platonic love or homosocial relationship would have been a bit more appropriate for a presentational context.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, her evidence for the ‘bromance’ or platonic relationship is more than ample; with a grand total of eleven verses supporting her view of David and Johnathon’s friendship. The textual evidence that I feel most uplifts Nacke’s thesis comes from 1 Samuel 20:17; “and Jonathan made David reaffirm his vow of friendship again, for Jonathan loved David as he loved himself”. As clearly stated in the verse, they two possess a deep and close bond that surpasses the usual one between comrades. The proof of their affection for each other continues in 2 Samuel 2:26 as David mourns the death of his companion: “how I weep for you, my brother Jonathan! Oh, how much I loved you! And your love for me was deep, deeper than the love of women!”.
In conclusion, I feel as though Nacke presented a claim to us that is well supported by textual evidence. Although it is my opinion that perhaps the wording used was not the most scientific, it did get the point across in a modern sense.
-Micah Davis
First off, great job to all of the oral presenters this week. Everyone had great arguments and articulated them well. One that I found particularly fascinating was Paige’s. The idea that biblical authors ceased to use a woman’s name when she was being objectified is one that I have never heard before, yet it seems to be pervasive throughout the texts. While pondering this proposition, another similar example came to mind. In Genesis 3, when Adam is blaming Eve for his consumption of the fruit, he does not use her name. He simply says, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (Gen 3:12). In fact, throughout that entire exchange, Eve’s name is never mentioned. Only in verse 20 is it mentioned that Ever is her name. It is highly unlikely that Adam didn’t name Eve until after the Fall, so this could be another example of a decision not to use her name due to Adam blaming her for the Fall. Overall, great job to Paige and to all the other presenters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paige’s argument that the narrator used the names of the women in 2 Samuel to show the reader how they were being treated. The women are only named when they are identified as persons instead of objects. As soon as they are treated as objects, they lose their personhood and their names.
ReplyDeleteIn Genesis 16, Sarai has no children with her husband Abram. To have a family, she gives Hagar, her servant, to Abram to conceive. The narrator introduces Hagar by name at first. This is due to her being a person. She may be a maidservant, but she maintains her personhood. As soon as Sarai gives her to Abram as a walking womb (Gen. 16:2), Hagar becomes “the servant.” She is again named in Gen. 16:4 when Abram goes into her as a wife. As a wife, she holds more value than a maidservant in terms of her relationship with Abram. Hagar is again “she” and “servant” when Sarai does not like how Hagar reacts to pregnancy. She regains her name when an angel of the LORD speaks to her (Gen. 16: 7).
Another example of the personhood of women being shown in their naming is in Ruth. Ruth is referred to by her name for the majority of the book. Most that speak to her acknowledge her value as a person, even though a Moabite. However, in chapter 2 when Boaz wonders who the woman in the field is, the field hands refer to her as “the young Moabite woman” (2:6) and “she.” Boaz refers to her by name when he speaks to her the first time even though the reapers did not call her by name. To the reapers, she is just a poor woman looking for food. To Boaz, she has value as a person. He invites her to glean only in his fields and offers protection. In this case, it is not the objectification of Ruth that is shown by her losing her name. It is more a reference to who values her.
I think Paige’s paper did a great job of describing a pinpointed example of a pattern that occurs in many instances in the bible - women being named or unnamed - and I think it’s supported in an inverse way by the Judges story of Deborah. Paige highlighted how names, when purposely omitted, typically denote female objectification, and in Deborah’s story this is flipped, as Deborah’s name is consistently used (9 times in 2 chapters). This gives her the opposite effect – she is solidified as a character rather than seen as an object. In the span of her story, even though initially introduced as an extension of her husband (Judges 4:4), she is only NOT referred to by name (instead as “she”) three times (Judges 4:5, Judges 4:6, & Judges 4:9), and in each her name is usually present in the sentence before or after. This can be attributed to the consistent respect and importance she possesses in the story and gives the effect that her pronouns are only in use to prevent repetitiveness. Deborah’s righteous and valiant personification earns her consistent naming and Tamar and Bathsheba, who are both treated and regarded significantly worse, are sometimes left without - both facts which attest to the significance of names, and how strongly they correlate to the overall presentation and respect/power of women in the bible.
ReplyDeleteI think that Chloe and Jordan's paper does a great job arguing that a kings beauty foreshadows their downfall. To provide further evidence that it only applies to kings, I would like to point out the story of Joshua in Genesis and the story of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah in the book of Daniel.
ReplyDeleteLate in the book of Genesis, we are introduced to Joseph and then he quickly gets sold into slavery. While he works at Potiphar's house, Potiohar's wife tries to sleep with him and accuses him of rape. But just before she does that, we get a description of Joseph in 39:6 "Now Joseph was well-built and handsome." In this case, Joseph's good looks leads to a period of difficulty in his life; however, he still manages to rises above and do well. So even though Joseph was good looking and he had a downfall, from managing a noble's land to prison, he still did well.
In class we have not read the story of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (also known as Shadrach,Meshach, and Abednego). The context is that Babylon has taken Jerusalem, and the King of Babylon wants to take and train young Israelites to join the king's service. Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah get choosen because they met the Kings qualifications that they be "young men without any physical defect, handsome" (Daniel 1:4) among some other traits. So these men get tested again and again by the Kings official and by staying true to their faith, they prevail. None of them have a downfall, they all do rather well, each ending in positions of power. Just like with Saul and David, their appearances were key to them securing positions of power. However, unlike Saul and David, their appearance did not foreshadow a downfall. I believe these two points help prove that the author of 1st and 2nd Samuel used Saul's and David's beauty to foreshadow their downfall by showing examples where a man's good looks led to their success.
First off, I think it's really cool that Paige's last name translates to "good heart". Second of all, she did a great job presenting her argument. When reading about Bathsheba and Tamar, I had noted this exact point of the name changing. Both women are in similar situations, so this is why they are an appropriate comparison. If I were to add to this argument, I would provide the evidence of 2 Samuel 12:15. "After Nathan returned to his home, the Lord sent a deathly illness to David and Uriah's wife." With this evidence it starts with David's name and Bathsheba's title. The second set of evidence I would add is 2 Samuel 14:2. "So he sent for a woman from Tekoa who had a reputation for great wisdom." This is another character mentioned in the book of Samuel that does not get named, but is influential in the book. Though she does not have the same situation as the other two women, she is apart of Samuel. Overall, I felt the argument was well portrayed as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI loved Mine’s presentation on the unique brotherhood of David and Jonathan. Men brought together by misery and shared experiences in wartime become a family.
ReplyDeleteThe result of the shared experiences is a closeness unknown to outsiders. The relationship is different and more intimate than that of lovers. Wartime bodies, and their knowledge, of each other, becomes total.
The intensity of wartime experiences, get to know each other’s life stories, what they did before they came into the Army, where and why they volunteered for military service, what they like to eat and drink, and what the capabilities are wartime. On a night march in total darkness, they can hear a cough, and know who was by their silhouette.
Small units, like nine-man squads, become close-knit families. Groups of two and fours, usually from the same squads or sections, become the core elements within the family in those small units. They readily become recognizable entities to other men in the group. They insist on going hungry for one another, freezing for one another, dying for one another. Like David and Jonathan, such a connection is almost a mystical concoction.
I think Mine did an excellent job in displaying that in her argument.
- Dom Oto
I found Mine's oral paper very interesting and couldn't agree more with her. As she pointed out, 1 Samuel is full of evidence supporting her thesis that David and Jonathan expressed a very strong bond between each other unlike any other bond we've seen up to this point in the scripture. Of course, there is also evidence in 2 Samuel. After reviewing her paper and looking back through 1 Samuel, I think it is important to point out that the narrator mentions how David and Jonathan made a "solemn pact" between each other not once, but twice. 1 Samuel 18:3 and 20:16 mention this pact. I found these verses in the NLT. The narrator says that these two men made these solemn pacts because of their love for each other. I strongly feel that these two verses certainly help to further Mine's thesis and certainly support the fact that David and Jonathan had an abnormally strong bond at this point in time.
ReplyDeleteI found Paige's presentation to be very interesting and I agree with the point that she made. Growing up going to catholic school my whole life I was never shown these stories and never really looked into them. Reading them in class made me realize that things that happen in the world today happened back in the time of the bible too. I found it to be so strange that they used the women names before they were used as objects. Its like showing that they are only good until they are used then they mean nothing. Knowing the names of women in the bible is rare in the first place because they are usually referred to as the wife, or the woman. Once the women have meaning and purpose, such as for pure pleasure for a man, they have a name and then after that there is no use for them and they have lost their name. In Judges chapter 4 it introduces Deborah and talks about her using her name all the time. When they first introduce her they say she is the wife of Lappidoth (Judges 4:4). Its almost as they can't talk about a women without saying who she belongs to. In genesis (Gen 3:15) "i will put enmity between you and the woman" Eve has a name until after the sinned then she is referred to as "the woman" which furthers paige's point about women being named or unnamed in the bible.
ReplyDeleteI found Paige's presentation to be very interesting and I agree with the point that she made. Growing up going to catholic school my whole life I was never shown these stories and never really looked into them. Reading them in class made me realize that things that happen in the world today happened back in the time of the bible too. I found it to be so strange that they used the women names before they were used as objects. Its like showing that they are only good until they are used then they mean nothing. Knowing the names of women in the bible is rare in the first place because they are usually referred to as the wife, or the woman. Once the women have meaning and purpose, such as for pure pleasure for a man, they have a name and then after that there is no use for them and they have lost their name. In Judges chapter 4 it introduces Deborah and talks about her using her name all the time. When they first introduce her they say she is the wife of Lappidoth (Judges 4:4). Its almost as they can't talk about a women without saying who she belongs to. In genesis (Gen 3:15) "i will put enmity between you and the woman" Eve has a name until after the sinned then she is referred to as "the woman" which furthers paige's point about women being named or unnamed in the bible.
ReplyDeletePaige did a great job of arguing her points on the objectification of both Bathsheba and Tamar in the bible. The patterns of naming vs omitting these two women's' names directly reflects when the women are valued vs objectified. There are additional examples throughout the old testament the reflect this transition in objectification. Both of mine specifically come from Judges. My first example comes from the story of Jeptha's vow. In Judges 11:34, Jeptha's daughter is named as Mizpah, in excitement she was dancing and playing the tambourine. Yet as the story continues and Jeptha realize's his daughter's fate as a sacrifice, her name is not mentioned againas she is objectified and considered a sacrifice to God. My next example comes from the story of the levite and his concubine in Judges 19. While the concubine is never named this may be a reference to her constant objectification. When the levite comes to Bethlehem to get his concubine, she seems to be treated as property. And the objectification only worsens as the story continues. In order to save the levite's life, the concubine is shoved out of a house to a mob of benjamenites who rape her to death. Merely seen as an object throughout the entire story, it is evident as to why she was never named, thus still supporting Paige's Thesis. I greatly enjoyed Paige's presentation, and every presentation afterwards.
ReplyDeleteI loved Paige's argument. I think it was very insightful. I agree with Paige and I think she could even narrow her argument to include women who are married as well. For example, Ruth is almost always mentioned as Ruth, as opposed to she, her, woman, but write after she gets married to Boaz, her name is not mentioned in the rest of the book, despite that the book is named after her. "So Boaz took Ruth, and SHE became his WIFE. and he went in to HER, and the Lord gave HER conception, and SHE bore a son." Ruth 4:13 On the contrary, which supports Paige's argument. Esther, is always referred to as Esther. She is not owned or raped or defiled in any way, ans her identity remains true to exactly who she is until the end.In fact, the last time her name is mentioned she is referred to as queen, "The command of QUEEN ESTHER confirmed these practices of Purium, and it was recorded in writing." Esther 9:32
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you see ALL of my grammar errors, me too. Please ignore as much as you can.
DeleteI thought everyone did an amazing job! However, I do have to agree with Paige's argument. It was interesting to see how she mentioned that Tamar and Batsheeba's names are not mentioned as much as the men do but also how it is really throughout the whole Bible. It really makes me wonder if that goes back to Genesis and how Eve was cursed to be basically below men. If you look back at Genesis, Eve's name is mentioned whenever she is talked about. However, after she eats the fruit, it kind of goes downhill for women there. Wives are rarely mentioned, servants names. But when the names do come up is when the Bible talks about them as being so beautiful. Like in Esther. Queen Esther was so beautiful and her name is always mentioned. It is like going to the clean and unclean from what we talked about in the beginning. If women are not beautiful enough, they are in a way considered unclean and not important. But as we have read in the books, there are men that are mentioned that are not strong or handsome but are still mentioned by name left and right. Great presentations!
ReplyDelete-Kim Vi
The oral paper that was most compelling and interesting to me was Paige’s. The way she elaborated and deepened what we noted in class was very admirable to represent the objectification of Bathsheba and Tamar. I am curious as to how far this could be expanded, probably even into a literary thesis. Tracing back to the knowledge of earlier this semester we can remember that in the book of Noah the women were unnamed, additionally in Genesis Lot’s wife is never named. These are just the beginnings of the omissions…
ReplyDelete-Chloe Lachmund
Genesis 7:13: On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark.
DeleteGenesis 19: 15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.”
-Lots wife is never named, his daughters are never named either (even after they give him sons in the cave- EW)
The oral papers were all very interesting and insightful, but one that stood out to me as being particularly interesting was Paige's oral paper. I agree with her thesis. Taking this class has required me to read so much deeper into the Bible than I ever had before and considering Paige's point about the women omitting their names only once they are objectified by men in order to reflect how the women were viewed is a point I had not previously considered. After looking further into Paige's thesis, this theme is something that is reoccurring throughout the Bible as well. For example, even way back in Genesis, after Eve had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam says, "It was the woman you gave me who gave me the fruit, and I ate it." This is in Genesis 3:12. Also, in Genesis 3:13, it says, "The Lord God asked the woman, 'What have you done?" Eve's name is not mentioned after she had sinned, and this supports Paige's argument of women's names only being mentioned to reflect how women were viewed and treated. Another example is in Genesis 3:15. It says, "And I will cause hostility between you and the woman." Also, in Genesis, there is many times where Eve's name is not mentioned, and she is just referred to as Adam's wife. This is similar to Paige's oral paper when she discussed that Bathsheba is often referenced to as, "wife" or "wife of Uriah". Paige also mentioned that a woman's name is also only mentioned before she is taken advantage of or objectified. For example, we see this in Genesis in Genesis 4:25 when it says, "Adam had sexual relations with his wife again, and she gave birth to another son. She named him Seth." I noticed that Eve's name was also not mentioned here. Listening to Paige's oral paper was interesting and I enjoyed it because it allowed me to look back at the passages we have already read and look even deeper into them.
ReplyDeleteI thought Paige's presentation was incredibly interesting and she definitely had lots of evidence to back her thesis. I think she could have added to her argument by referring to past instances of objectification in the bible. In Genesis 38:1-5 the wife of Judah is never given a name, and seems to only be mentioned because of the sons she bears. Another interesting addition to her thesis would be to argue that the books centered around a male character show more objectification of women than the stories centered around a woman. For example the book of Esther. Queen Vashti is objectified in the first chapter of this book but that is really the last time you see objectification of a specific woman in this book. I think that could add an interesting layer to this argument.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading everyone presentation argument all did great job. The idea Paige came with was the topic touched me the most to respond to it, because it shows and reveals very interesting characters of the king David family written in the book of 2 Samuel. The story of Bathsheba and Tamar are alike. These women were experienced the same situations in the scene both were exploited against their will in the family. Bathsheba was raped by king David since she couldn't refuse to the king demand. Tamar also rapped by her half brother against her will. I think maybe the consequences came from David action even though it wasn't written in the Bible. The idea of objectification of these two women is real, because we don't see their names and stories in the Bible as good examples as others. Especially Bathsheba should have been raised more positively since she is the mother of king Solomon and God like her with his compassion and heal her pain through his root.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Mine’s presentation was very interesting and also very eye opening. Before coming to this class, I had not had much experience reading this section within the bible. Following her presentation, I could not agree with her more. After looking through the text and applying her points that she had made throughout the presentation, it was very apparent that this was the case. The first textual reference that I found was in 1 Samuel 20:17. In this section of the text, you can find information where they are wanting each other to reassure their friendship and are basically wanting each other to say they have each other’s back. There are multiple sections in 2 Samuel that talk about this as well. The reassurance of the friendship is not a one-time occurrence either. This is present multiple times throughout the text that was talked about.
ReplyDeleteThe thesis that resonated most with my was Paige's argument on the objectification of women versus when omitting their names. Aside from the textual evidence presented in the book of Samuel, there are multiple examples that omit the woman's name when she is not particularly relevant to the story. In the book of Judges, we read how the levite woman was tossed aside and was also never mentioned by name, the text only focused on how she was treated. We also see Jephthah's daughter never mentioned by name, only how she was used as a sacrifice. To contrast the lack of names, we do see a secondary character in the book of Genesis, being referred to directly by name. Hagar, the concubine for Abraham fulfilled a purpose and the narrator took the time to tell continue and tell her story, despite her not being mentioned in the rest of the bible following the old testament. But she had a purpose and fruitful interactions with other people in the book of Genesis. She was not objectified, but personified heavily which is maybe by the narrator chose to keep her name. I think Paige's examples allowed us to truly see the personification and objectification of characters in ways that we were unable to do in other biblical chapters due to the shortness of the reading.
ReplyDeletePhysical beauty and fallen grace parallels the story of Creation and Original Sin. Chloe and Jordan argue that whenever a Biblical character's physical beauty and level of attractiveness is mentioned (in the context of 1 and 2 Samuel), it is a foreshadowing of their eventual downfall and separation from God. The same trope is also found in Creation. God describes creation of Earth as "good", but when He creates humanity, suddenly creation is described as "very good". Although the word "good" is not a strong descriptor for appearance, the addition of "very" adds to the idea that humanity makes Earth beautiful and worthwhile to the LORD. Of course, when Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit, The Fall happens, and it is comparable to the falls off David and Absalom because they are also beautiful human creations of God, and their sinfulness distances them from God and they lose favor (but not his love).
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, beauty in soul, spirit, and mind, not outward beauty, causes elevation in the eyes of God. For example, Mary the Mother of God's soul is immaculate and pure and essentially radiant, which makes her fit to bare Jesus as he is Perfect in all ways (except in physical beauty, in which he is homely).
First off, it's hard to choose one argument to comment one because I enjoyed and gained insight from everyone's. However, I got the most out of Paige's argument. So I would say I agree with her. The first situation I can reference is 2 Samuel 11:4 "So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her." I find it interesting how he stopped referencing her name once he the situation turned sexual. I think since David felt like he had conquered her. Her name was no longer significant. Bathsheba unintentionally lost her innocence. Just like in modern day situations, when I guy is dating and pursuing you the woman is unforgettable. Since there's still something to accomplish. Once the guy has sexual encounters with the woman he generally starts to separate himself and eventually the woman becomes forgettable. Unfortunately in Tamar's situation it was against her will. However, since David still felt accomplished he stopped referencing her name. Until 2 Samuel 12:1 when her name was referenced seven times. Paige did a good job of pointing out the repetition in the names and connecting them to situations. The women in this chapter were not valued as much prior to. It's interesting how women in the bible are only remembered by what they've done their deeds are undying.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, it's hard to choose one argument to comment one because I enjoyed and gained insight from everyone's. However, I got the most out of Paige's argument. So I would say I agree with her. The first situation I can reference is 2 Samuel 11:4 "So David sent messengers and took her, and she came to him, and he lay with her." I find it interesting how he stopped referencing her name once he the situation turned sexual. I think since David felt like he had conquered her. Her name was no longer significant. Bathsheba unintentionally lost her innocence. Just like in modern day situations, when I guy is dating and pursuing you the woman is unforgettable. Since there's still something to accomplish. Once the guy has sexual encounters with the woman he generally starts to separate himself and eventually the woman becomes forgettable. Unfortunately in Tamar's situation it was against her will. However, since David still felt accomplished he stopped referencing her name. Until 2 Samuel 12:1 when her name was referenced seven times. Paige did a good job of pointing out the repetition in the names and connecting them to situations. The women in this chapter were not valued as much prior to. It's interesting how women in the bible are only remembered by what they've done their deeds are undying.
ReplyDeleteI found Chloe's and Jordan’s argument to be particularly interesting as this idea was something I had wondered about as we read through 1 and 2 Samuel. I previously pondered why the narrator chose to mention David’s good looks right after writing about how the Lord looks at the heart; Chloe's and Jordan's thesis gives a very logical and reasonable explanation for this. One verse that I believe they could have mentioned to add to their argument is found in 2 Samuel 11:1, which says “In the spring of the year, when kings normally go out to war, David sent Joab and the Israelite army to fight the Ammonites… However, David stayed behind in Jerusalem.” This verse specifically shows that David is not acting king-like even before his downfall with Bathsheba; an ideal King would go to battle every year with his men. Because this verse is placed directly before his affair with Bathsheba, it gives a strong foreshadowing that something worse is about to happen. Another facet to this thesis is that not only did the downfall of these men affect themselves, but it also affected those around them. For instance, after Absolom’s death David is distraught. According to 2 Samuel 18:33, “The king was overcome with emotion. He went up to the room over the gateway and burst into tears.” Not only did downfall come to Absolom, but his downfall also had a great effect on David himself. This highlights the gravity of the downfall that comes with the prioritization of outward beauty. Overall, I found this thesis to be a great explanation for the mentioning of David’s outward beauty in 1 Samuel.
ReplyDeleteIn Paige's presentation, I think she did a good job presenting her argument and backing it up with evidence. However, I would like to take an opposing stance. Something interesting I found in 2 Samuel 11:5 is that while the ESV does not reference Bathsheba's name, the NLT, does call her "Bathsheba" when she sends David a message telling him that she's pregnant. Therefore, I think it's very possible that interpretations are varied depending on the translation. It would be interesting to consider what the original was written as. The same difference in translation occurs in 2 Samuel 13:16 where Tamar is explicitly called by name when she protests being sent away. The discrepancies in translations make me think a lot about the various meanings that can arise from the reading. Therefore, for that reason, I'm not sure I could be convinced that one particular distinction/spin of an idea like this is the one true interpretation. Nevertheless, I think Paige provided a clear, direct explanation of her thesis.
ReplyDelete